[anonsec] 3401 and highjacking

[Joe Touch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 06:18:23PM -0500, Stephen Kent wrote:
...
>>My recollection from the BOF was that only some of the cited 
>>motivations for BTNS explicitly cite transport layer protection. When 
>>applications want to use lower layer security mechanisms to enable 
>>higher performance via off-loading crypto to a different processor, 
>>that can be achieved via SSL/TLS, for example.
> 
> Yes, that's my motivation.

We probably agree on that, but it's not a motivation for BTNS. BTNS is a
good place to develop a particular channel binding variant, but that
doesn't seem like a motivation.

>>I think the crux of our possible disagreement is that you see every 
>>BTNS motivation as demanding protection for the transport layer 
>>protocol, whole I see only one of cited motivations as emphasizing 
>>this requirement.
> 
> We must be converging -- your disagreements with either Joe or myself
> are more and more matters of degree :)
> 
> Nico

Agreed on the last point, but it would be useful to understand these
just a bit further, again as they may need to be incorporated into the P&AS.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD/0moE5f5cImnZrsRAsQxAJ4ntQvv69jGABgpdPa6L0bW1hdaBACggFYa
AI9d71VC+FlK6l0WxD9hMhc=
=hn4p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----